Renasant Bank, Inc. v. Smithgall et al

Filing 72

OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff Renasant Bank, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 44 is GRANTED. Following the entry of this Order, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to re-docket the Amended and Restated Complaint 59 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss 28 , 29 , 30 , 46 , 53 filed prior to the Amended and Restated Complaint are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay Preliminary Deadlines Pending Final Disposition of Motio ns to Dismiss 33 and Defendant Elaine Smithgall's Motion for Joinder to Motion to Stay Preliminary Deadlines 35 are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant John F. Smithgall's Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading 31 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 2/5/2016. (anc)

Act and (ii) to recover attorneys’ fees under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11. ([1]). To allow
the Court to determine if it had subject matter jurisdiction in this case, on February
20, 2015, the Court ordered [3] Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that
adequately alleged the citizenships of certain Defendants. The amended complaint
was required to be filed on or before March 9, 2015. On February 26, 2015,
Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint [4], which contained the information
required by the Court’s February 20, 2015, Order.
On May 4, 2015, several Defendants filed answers and motions to dismiss
the First Amended Complaint. ([28], [29], [30], [32]). On May 29, 2015,
Defendant Jason Smithgall filed his motion to dismiss, and, on June 1, 2015,
Defendant Ray Simmons filed his motion to dismiss.1
On May 4, 2015, several Defendants filed their Motion to Stay. On May 5,
2015, Defendant Elaine Smithgall filed her Motion for Joinder.
On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Amend. All Defendants
opposed the motion, arguing that Plaintiff once amended its initial Complaint as a
matter of course, and because Plaintiff failed to attach to its Motion to Amend a
proposed amended complaint or to otherwise give notice to Defendants of the
1

Defendant John F. Smithgall filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Responsive Pleading [31].

2

substance of the proposed amendments, the motion to amend is invalid. (Resp.
[51] at 2-4). Defendants explained that Plaintiff’s failure to attach a proposed
second amended complaint “renders Defendants unable to address the Motion on
its merits,” (id. at 4), and this supports that the amendment should not be allowed.
About three weeks later, on June 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Amended and
Restated Complaint (the “ARC”).
On January 13, 2016, the Court entered an Order [69] construing Plaintiff’s
ARC as if it were attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, and considered the
Motion to Amend as filed on June 12, 2015. The Court allowed Defendants to file
a response to the Motion to Amend.
On February 1, 2016, Defendants filed their Response [70], indicating that
Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
II.

DISCUSSION
“The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole

discretion of the district court.” Laurie v. Ala Ct. of Criminal Appeals, 256 F.3d
1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001). Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

3

Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, and the Court finds
that it would be fair and efficient to allow the ARC to be filed. Accordingly, the
Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
Because the ARC is the operative Complaint as of the filing of this Opinion
and Order, all previously-filed motions to dismiss are required to be denied as
moot, but without prejudice to any Defendant moving to dismiss the ARC.2
Further, because the Motion to Stay seeks a stay pending the final
disposition of motions to dismiss that are now moot, the Court also denies as moot
the Motion to Stay and Motion for Joinder.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Renasant Bank, Inc.’s Motion

for Leave to Amend Complaint [44] is GRANTED. Following the entry of this
Order, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to re-docket the Amended and Restated
Complaint [59].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss [28, 29, 30, 46,
53] filed prior to the Amended and Restated Complaint are DENIED AS MOOT.
2

Defendant John F. Smithgall’s Motion for Extension of Time to File
Responsive Pleading was filed with respect to a non-operative complaint, and also
is denied as moot.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary
Deadlines Pending Final Disposition of Motions to Dismiss [33] and Defendant
Elaine Smithgall’s Motion for Joinder to Motion to Stay Preliminary Deadlines
[35] are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant John F. Smithgall’s Motion
for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading [31] is DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED this 5th day of February, 2016.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5